Above is a list I compiled half a year ago with all the most prominent polls and referendums ever held that directly or indirectly queried Crimeans on their attitudes towards Russia and Ukraine, along with the performance of the single most “Russophile” option in each case*.

In 1992, the Republic of Crimea proclaimed self-government as part of Ukraine with its own Constitution. The pro-independence candidate Yury Meshkov was elected President in January 1994 with 73% of the vote. 79% of Crimeans voted for greater autonomy two months later.

In 1995, the Ukrainian parliament annuled the Crimean Constitution and removed Meshkov from office.

Consistently ~80% of Crimeans voted for “Blue” parties and Presidential candidates who promised closer relations with Russia during their stint as Ukrainian citizens.

Consistently 80% of Crimeans said they’d vote “Yes” in a referendum on joining Russia in a series of polls from 2009 to 2011 carried out by the UN Development Program.

The one major exception to this pattern was in the two polls by IRI, a Ukrainian polling organization. There, a majority opted for autonomy in Ukraine, versus 26% who opted to be “separated and given to Russia.” Even so, far more Crimeans said they’d favor trade integration with Russia over the EU if they were forced to choose between the two.

No majority support for independence in the two KIIS polls, but there the question referred to whether they’d like “all of Ukraine” to join Russia.

Also, as with the IRI polls, at the time Crimeans likely regarded getting incorporated into Russia as unrealistic anyway, and thus might have decided to opt for the safe option of autonomy.

After the Euromaidan coup, the beatings of Crimean counter-protesters at Korsun by Right Sector, and the Orwellian-named “friendship trains” that started spreading out from Lvov and Kiev to put down the less Maidan-enthused regions, support in Crimea for joining Russia became near universal.

Even on the streets, the pro-Russian crowds were much bigger than the pro-Ukraine ones – that’s according to to a journalist then working at The Economist, that well known Kremlin propaganda organ. /s

Both Russian (FOM, VCIOM) and Western/Ukrainian (GfK Ukraine, Gallup) pollsters consistently showed overwhelming, usually 90%+, support for joining Russia ever since the Crimean referendum – well in line with the official results that were supposedly obtained by Crimeans being “held at gunpoint.”

The one exception to this pattern, an estimate of 50%-60%, was produced by the Russian President’s Human Rights Council. However, on closer examination, it was not any sort of official figure, as presented by Forbes blogger Paul Roderick Gregory – a professional anti-Russian hack who later claimed 2,000 Russian soldiers died in Donbass on the basis of some lurid claims from a completely unknown Russian “business news” website – but the mere personal opinion of a single member of the Council, Yevgeny Bobrov, who based his assessment on conversations with a couple dozen unnamed “activists.”

Note that this version of events is supported by records of discussions held amongst the leaders of the Maidan themselves. Debating on whether or not to use military force to keep Crimea within Ukraine at the height of the crisis, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and former SBU head Valentin Nalivaychenko both admitted that Russia’s actions enjoyed the overwhelming support of the Crimeans.

So if you disagree Trump for observing that Crimeans “would rather be with Russia than where they were,” you are also disagreeing with not just Western polling agencies but the main organizers of Euromaidan and current leaders of Ukraine, and guess what – that makes you a Putin stooge, or so I’ve been told!

* “Don’t Know” and N/A responses are discounted. The “Adjusted” version of the referendum results consider those who abstained from voting as having voted Against.

OT Costin Vlad Alamariu compares the looting of Russia in the 1990s to corporate ravaging of the USA today.

The offshoring of America’s industries and jobs, the devastation of American manufacturing and most kinds of engineering, the massive national debt are, in their beginnings, the same process of national destruction that began in Russia in the 1990s, but to which Putin put a stop in the 2000s.

The offshoring of America’s industries and jobs, the devastation of American manufacturing and most kinds of engineering, the massive national debt are, in their beginnings, the same process of national destruction that began in Russia in the 1990s

OT Costin Vlad Alamariu compares the looting of Russia in the 1990s to corporate ravaging of the USA today.

The offshoring of America’s industries and jobs, the devastation of American manufacturing and most kinds of engineering, the massive national debt are, in their beginnings, the same process of national destruction that began in Russia in the 1990s, but to which Putin put a stop in the 2000s.

The offshoring of America’s industries and jobs, the devastation of American manufacturing and most kinds of engineering, the massive national debt are, in their beginnings, the same process of national destruction that began in Russia in the 1990s

Just for argument’s sake, let us assume every single person in the Crimea did not want to be part of Russia. Why is the Crimea important to America? And in any case, Turkey still controls the mouth of the Black sea.

Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the end of Cold War and Crimea fits right into this pattern. US is only happy to encourage separatist movements within the Russian Federation, yet borders of other post-Soviet states are somehow sacrosanct.

Suspect it's more ideological than anything practical/rational. Since about 2011 Russia has been the bête noire of the liberal interventionists/neocons. Relations had been headed on a steady downward trajectory since the Yukos case. There was a "Conservative friends of Russia" parliamentary grouping in the UK fairly recently (along the same lines as the Labour/Conservative friends of Israel), but as soon as the neocons found out about it was browbeaten out of existence and lasted about a fortnight. Crimea was, from their point of view, an egregious act of blasphemy against the cult of Atlanticism and the "end of history" narrative. The people pushing hardest for a confrontation with Russia care more about pushing those ideologies onto the world than America per se. Whether they actually believe their own rhetoric (read Nick Cohen's last articles; every single one of them, no matter what the topic, has a russophobic rant shoehorned into it) or whether they know it to be nonsense but have ulterior motives, I don't know.

Every day they find something on which they compeltely flip out. Total communal meltdown. "I can't believe I'm seeing this!!!" "How can this be happening??" And then the next day this happens to them over a different thing that Trump said. It's amazing how many days in a row this has gone on.

I think this phrase, "how can this be happening?!?!" really captures the media's mood right now. I've seen it several times.

Just for argument's sake, let us assume every single person in the Crimea did not want to be part of Russia. Why is the Crimea important to America? And in any case, Turkey still controls the mouth of the Black sea.

Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the end of Cold War and Crimea fits right into this pattern. US is only happy to encourage separatist movements within the Russian Federation, yet borders of other post-Soviet states are somehow sacrosanct.

Just for argument's sake, let us assume every single person in the Crimea did not want to be part of Russia. Why is the Crimea important to America? And in any case, Turkey still controls the mouth of the Black sea.

Suspect it’s more ideological than anything practical/rational. Since about 2011 Russia has been the bête noire of the liberal interventionists/neocons. Relations had been headed on a steady downward trajectory since the Yukos case. There was a “Conservative friends of Russia” parliamentary grouping in the UK fairly recently (along the same lines as the Labour/Conservative friends of Israel), but as soon as the neocons found out about it was browbeaten out of existence and lasted about a fortnight. Crimea was, from their point of view, an egregious act of blasphemy against the cult of Atlanticism and the “end of history” narrative. The people pushing hardest for a confrontation with Russia care more about pushing those ideologies onto the world than America per se. Whether they actually believe their own rhetoric (read Nick Cohen’s last articles; every single one of them, no matter what the topic, has a russophobic rant shoehorned into it) or whether they know it to be nonsense but have ulterior motives, I don’t know.

Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the end of Cold War and Crimea fits right into this pattern. US is only happy to encourage separatist movements within the Russian Federation, yet borders of other post-Soviet states are somehow sacrosanct.

Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the end of Cold War

Fixed it for you “Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the start of Cold War”

Fixed it for you:"keeping Russians miserable seems to be the main objective of US foreign policy since Oct. 1917." (Personally I make an exception for the Harding Coolidge era.)
I wonder if the Russians remember how TR hosed them at Portsmouth after the Russo-Japanese war and how the Evil Wilson invaded them from 1917-1920 in an attempt to reverse the decisions of Oct.1917.
While the neocons are talked about as if they were Israeli firsters, their true desire is to reverse the decision the USSR took in 1924 to prefer Stalin to Trotsky after the demise of Lenin.
Everything the neocons have done is aimed at delegitimizing any Russian nationalist/patriot leader, and memory holing any history of their part in the horrors of the holodomor and the purges and the destruction of the Russian economy under Gorbachev and Yelstin.
It is why there is no available British/English/American translation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together.

The American establishment was much kinder and gentler toward Russia during the Soviet Era (1917-1991). American anticommunists were ritually and publicly humiliated. Even worse, the American government allowed the KGB/GRU to carry out assassinations on American soil. These days it is mandatory to slander and insult Putin, and the Russian people in general. Trump refuses to play along and as a result is the object of an all-out journalistic attack. The implications of this are apparently too much for the American public to handle.

The statistics you boast are the result of spades and spades of propagandistic brainwashing,
and mind manipulation on a mass scale performed by the media.
If Crimeans were in-formed, like we inform the Westerners, they would do the right choices, and wish the right wishes (ours), like the Westerners to.

Contrary, what you have there is fascism, nazism, anti-Semitism (most of all!), and all the other foul words and political crimes we can think of, including non-masochism.
We really, really don’t like it Karlin. And you should stop now that we are still telling you kindly.

The statistics you boast are the result of spades and spades of propagandistic brainwashing,
and mind manipulation on a mass scale performed by the media.
If Crimeans were in-formed, like we inform the Westerners, they would do the right choices, and wish the right wishes (ours), like the Westerners to.

Dear Anonymous, as anonymouses often do, you has made so a perfect revealed truth sarcastic comment that it must be remembered and cited.

Anatoly, you really need to stop by Twitter and see how the Neocon/Clintonite ummah went into meltdown over Trump's words. It's a sight to behold.

Every day they find something on which they compeltely flip out. Total communal meltdown. “I can’t believe I’m seeing this!!!” “How can this be happening??” And then the next day this happens to them over a different thing that Trump said. It’s amazing how many days in a row this has gone on.

I think this phrase, “how can this be happening?!?!” really captures the media’s mood right now. I’ve seen it several times.

Every day they find something on which they compeltely flip out. Total communal meltdown. "I can't believe I'm seeing this!!!" "How can this be happening??" And then the next day this happens to them over a different thing that Trump said. It's amazing how many days in a row this has gone on.

I think this phrase, "how can this be happening?!?!" really captures the media's mood right now. I've seen it several times.

All those polls may be true, though you’d have done well to compare the wording of the questions — poll results are notoriously dependent on wording. Also, by now many of those who’d have answered in the negative, of whatever ethnicity, have left Crimea for the mainland, and will hardly go back. Also, I think getting Crimea back would be more trouble than it’s worth for Ukraine — in particular the seashore, which is the best real estate there, is a concentrate of homo sovieticus best left in the past. (See Varlamov’s recent posts on the subject, varlamov.ru/tag/Крым.) I just feel sorry for the Tartars. Still, the plain facts of the matter are that (a) Ukraine had a lot of nukes left over after USSR collapsed; (b) USA, UK and Russia promised, if in a half-assed manner, to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up the nukes; (c) by Putin’s own boastful admission, Russia had sent her troops to capture Simferopol and Ukrainian military bases before the Crimean referendum happened or even declared. Sending troops to capture a part of a foreign country is generally considered an act of war. Those same records to which you refer indicate that Ukraine’s new government did not have enough troops or confidence in their willingness to execute orders (events at several bases in Crimea showed that these doubts were far from baseless) to repel the invasion, and they also had to worry about Russia marching in across north-eastern borders “to restore order”. I suppose Ukraine should be grateful for what help it had, but the promise on the strength of which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons was broken. Will anybody trust America’s word again on such weighty matters? Trump should think about it.

Your key argument is that Russia (and by implication their allies in Crimea) broke an international law, or a treaty. They probably did, if we could define what is international law. In general, it can always be questioned whether a province or a region can vote itself an independence, or whether the whole country is required to vote on it. We see it today with Catalans and Spain. It is a hard question.

But your argument falls apart because of Kosovo. NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 to force an Independence that was desired by Kosovo Albanians. Nobody made the crazy argument that if they dont like it, they should move to an already existing Albanian state. Nobody cared about international law, about European treaties (e.g. Helsinki treaty), about UN, about minority rights in Kosovo (15% of population were Serbs)....NATO simply bombed, invaded, most Serbs were expelled, some were murdered, and Kosovo was declared independent after a decent pro forma delay.

Now that is a precedent - it was in Europe, it changed borders by force, it broke all international laws. Therefore today there is simply no way Crimea can be treated differently. NATO set a precedent, and Crimea predictably followed.

Unless you have an answer to Kosovo, your views on Crimea are amusing, but totally irrelevant. If you think that Kosovo was mistake by the West, my question is: what have you done to correct that mistake? Was anyone in the West - including the bloodthirsty media bombers - held accountable?

And if there were no consequences in the West for Kosovo, there wont be any for Crimea either. Precedent is a precedent. Thats the way it has always worked.

Also, I think getting Crimea back would be more trouble than it’s worth for Ukraine — in particular the seashore, which is the best real estate there, is a concentrate of homo sovieticus best left in the past. (See Varlamov’s recent posts on the subject, varlamov.ru/tag/Крым.) I just feel sorry for the Tartars.

I'm sure the most valuable and delicious patches of the shore have been owned by the Tatars. The Tatars are one of the main beneficiaries from this conflict.

(b) USA, UK and Russia promised, if in a half-assed manner, to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up the nukes;

Tis not true, nobody "promised" Ukraine to defend it, but just not to act violently. And it was indeed more like promises and not like a binding treaty, but even if it were a binding treaty, any country has a right to break treaties if it wants so.

All those polls may be true, though you'd have done well to compare the wording of the questions — poll results are notoriously dependent on wording. Also, by now many of those who'd have answered in the negative, of whatever ethnicity, have left Crimea for the mainland, and will hardly go back. Also, I think getting Crimea back would be more trouble than it's worth for Ukraine — in particular the seashore, which is the best real estate there, is a concentrate of homo sovieticus best left in the past. (See Varlamov's recent posts on the subject, varlamov.ru/tag/Крым.) I just feel sorry for the Tartars. Still, the plain facts of the matter are that (a) Ukraine had a lot of nukes left over after USSR collapsed; (b) USA, UK and Russia promised, if in a half-assed manner, to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up the nukes; (c) by Putin's own boastful admission, Russia had sent her troops to capture Simferopol and Ukrainian military bases before the Crimean referendum happened or even declared. Sending troops to capture a part of a foreign country is generally considered an act of war. Those same records to which you refer indicate that Ukraine's new government did not have enough troops or confidence in their willingness to execute orders (events at several bases in Crimea showed that these doubts were far from baseless) to repel the invasion, and they also had to worry about Russia marching in across north-eastern borders "to restore order". I suppose Ukraine should be grateful for what help it had, but the promise on the strength of which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons was broken. Will anybody trust America's word again on such weighty matters? Trump should think about it.

I don’t offer it to them, and you’re not one to reject it even if I did. (I also happen to think Eurovision is retarded.)

2) The UkSSR is by far the single biggest remnant of sovok in Eurasia.

Sure, and Russia is a worldwide beacon of culture and prosperity. Go outside Moscow and St. Petersburg once in a while.

3) Russia’s troops were already there, so there was no invasion.

This gets the prize for facetiousness. Russian troops were in Crimea under a bilateral treaty, their rights and functions circumscribed. American troops are stationed i.a. on Japanese territory, so I suppose you think it wouldn’t be an act of war (by the way, I didn’t use the word invasion) if they marched to the Okinawa prefectural diet, ordered everybody out and installed a new prefectural governor?

The Maidanists came to power illegitimately, and as such the Crimeans had no obligation to recognize their sovereignty over them.

This is your strongest point, but if you take this line, any new government is by definition illegitimate. Are Israeli, Gaza and West Bank Arabs obliged to recognize Israeli sovereignty? I also suppose you subscribe to Putin’s notion that the Budapest memorandum became null and void when Yanukovich skedaddled before a lot of people armed with a few hunting shotguns, in which case there is nothing more to discuss.

Sure, and Russia is a worldwide beacon of culture and prosperity. Go outside Moscow and St. Petersburg once in a while.

Whataboutism does not work here really. Even if Russia were as bad as Ukraine (obviously Ukraine is worse), it will not make Ukraine better. You must stop comparing yourself with Russia, when you claim you are grown up and independent. And you had better to go outside Kiev once a while.

This is your strongest point, but if you take this line, any new government is by definition illegitimate.

A good point. Yes, Ukraine is illegitimate per se. And any discussions if so and so actions of Russia towards Ukraine are legitimate or illegitimate are nonsensical by definition. It is Ukrainians who are actual illegitimate separatists, but who dare to call actual irredentists separatist and even terrorists. It is really very Orwellian when separatists call others separatists. If in the Kremlin there were a real Russian nationalist, patriot and imperialist and not the best friend of Ukraine and the Ukrainian god Putin, Ukraine will hardly stand a week.

You are obviously a severely dumb prick. You've never been outside of SP&Moscow you idiot to make such a stupid comment. There are MANY beautiful cities and towns in Russia that are high in culture you cretin.

The overwhelming majority of Crimean Tatars remained in Crimea. The wording has nothing to do with long-term annoyance at the Ukrainian authorities treatment of Crimea for 23 years you dimwit.

All those polls may be true, though you'd have done well to compare the wording of the questions — poll results are notoriously dependent on wording. Also, by now many of those who'd have answered in the negative, of whatever ethnicity, have left Crimea for the mainland, and will hardly go back. Also, I think getting Crimea back would be more trouble than it's worth for Ukraine — in particular the seashore, which is the best real estate there, is a concentrate of homo sovieticus best left in the past. (See Varlamov's recent posts on the subject, varlamov.ru/tag/Крым.) I just feel sorry for the Tartars. Still, the plain facts of the matter are that (a) Ukraine had a lot of nukes left over after USSR collapsed; (b) USA, UK and Russia promised, if in a half-assed manner, to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up the nukes; (c) by Putin's own boastful admission, Russia had sent her troops to capture Simferopol and Ukrainian military bases before the Crimean referendum happened or even declared. Sending troops to capture a part of a foreign country is generally considered an act of war. Those same records to which you refer indicate that Ukraine's new government did not have enough troops or confidence in their willingness to execute orders (events at several bases in Crimea showed that these doubts were far from baseless) to repel the invasion, and they also had to worry about Russia marching in across north-eastern borders "to restore order". I suppose Ukraine should be grateful for what help it had, but the promise on the strength of which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons was broken. Will anybody trust America's word again on such weighty matters? Trump should think about it.

Is any other all round facesaving solution conceivable than an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to promote a credible referendum in Crimea on Crimean independence with the right to hold a referendum after a period of years as to whether it would seek union with Russia (or any other country). Russia would of course say that it was not only upholding Crimeans right to autonomy but setting the good example of ensuring that honest referenda appeared honest and that coercion could not be legitimately asserted. Ukraine could hardly object to the kind of teferendum that the UK held wrt Scotland and would (probably) just have to concede the holding of a further referendum on union with Russia as being better than the alternative of an immediate move to union by an independent Crimea.

So, is there a logical or practical objection and, if not, what would the problem be of getting it off the ground? The Ukrainians would have to do what they were told by the EU and US. Could Putin be allowed to take the credit for suggesting it? He would have the incentive to do so of getting rid of the sanctions.

I don't offer it to them, and you're not one to reject it even if I did. (I also happen to think Eurovision is retarded.)

2) The UkSSR is by far the single biggest remnant of sovok in Eurasia.

Sure, and Russia is a worldwide beacon of culture and prosperity. Go outside Moscow and St. Petersburg once in a while.

3) Russia’s troops were already there, so there was no invasion.

This gets the prize for facetiousness. Russian troops were in Crimea under a bilateral treaty, their rights and functions circumscribed. American troops are stationed i.a. on Japanese territory, so I suppose you think it wouldn't be an act of war (by the way, I didn't use the word invasion) if they marched to the Okinawa prefectural diet, ordered everybody out and installed a new prefectural governor?

The Maidanists came to power illegitimately, and as such the Crimeans had no obligation to recognize their sovereignty over them.

This is your strongest point, but if you take this line, any new government is by definition illegitimate. Are Israeli, Gaza and West Bank Arabs obliged to recognize Israeli sovereignty? I also suppose you subscribe to Putin's notion that the Budapest memorandum became null and void when Yanukovich skedaddled before a lot of people armed with a few hunting shotguns, in which case there is nothing more to discuss.

Sure, and Russia is a worldwide beacon of culture and prosperity.

The USSR was a worldwide beacon of culture, and had a lot of prosperity. The most “sovok” parts of the Ukraine are the most prosperous and cultured parts.

All those polls may be true, though you'd have done well to compare the wording of the questions — poll results are notoriously dependent on wording. Also, by now many of those who'd have answered in the negative, of whatever ethnicity, have left Crimea for the mainland, and will hardly go back. Also, I think getting Crimea back would be more trouble than it's worth for Ukraine — in particular the seashore, which is the best real estate there, is a concentrate of homo sovieticus best left in the past. (See Varlamov's recent posts on the subject, varlamov.ru/tag/Крым.) I just feel sorry for the Tartars. Still, the plain facts of the matter are that (a) Ukraine had a lot of nukes left over after USSR collapsed; (b) USA, UK and Russia promised, if in a half-assed manner, to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up the nukes; (c) by Putin's own boastful admission, Russia had sent her troops to capture Simferopol and Ukrainian military bases before the Crimean referendum happened or even declared. Sending troops to capture a part of a foreign country is generally considered an act of war. Those same records to which you refer indicate that Ukraine's new government did not have enough troops or confidence in their willingness to execute orders (events at several bases in Crimea showed that these doubts were far from baseless) to repel the invasion, and they also had to worry about Russia marching in across north-eastern borders "to restore order". I suppose Ukraine should be grateful for what help it had, but the promise on the strength of which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons was broken. Will anybody trust America's word again on such weighty matters? Trump should think about it.

Your key argument is that Russia (and by implication their allies in Crimea) broke an international law, or a treaty. They probably did, if we could define what is international law. In general, it can always be questioned whether a province or a region can vote itself an independence, or whether the whole country is required to vote on it. We see it today with Catalans and Spain. It is a hard question.

But your argument falls apart because of Kosovo. NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 to force an Independence that was desired by Kosovo Albanians. Nobody made the crazy argument that if they dont like it, they should move to an already existing Albanian state. Nobody cared about international law, about European treaties (e.g. Helsinki treaty), about UN, about minority rights in Kosovo (15% of population were Serbs)….NATO simply bombed, invaded, most Serbs were expelled, some were murdered, and Kosovo was declared independent after a decent pro forma delay.

Now that is a precedent – it was in Europe, it changed borders by force, it broke all international laws. Therefore today there is simply no way Crimea can be treated differently. NATO set a precedent, and Crimea predictably followed.

Unless you have an answer to Kosovo, your views on Crimea are amusing, but totally irrelevant. If you think that Kosovo was mistake by the West, my question is: what have you done to correct that mistake? Was anyone in the West – including the bloodthirsty media bombers – held accountable?

And if there were no consequences in the West for Kosovo, there wont be any for Crimea either. Precedent is a precedent. Thats the way it has always worked.

If precedents and current political practice are assigned any weight, one can point out that the recent Scottish independence referendum was only held in Scotland, not throughout the UK. Yes, the UK government agreed to that, but at the time of the Crimean referendum there was no legitimate government in the Ukraine, certainly not according to the modern European understanding of legitimacy. Just some thugs who shot their way into the presidential palace.

An interesting point and worthwhile reminder but why isn't the international treaty by which (in return for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons on its soil as I understand it) Ukraine's borders were acknowledged and guaranteed by Russia (and others) a distinguishing feature which answers your claim of precedent?

Your key argument is that Russia (and by implication their allies in Crimea) broke an international law, or a treaty. They probably did, if we could define what is international law. In general, it can always be questioned whether a province or a region can vote itself an independence, or whether the whole country is required to vote on it. We see it today with Catalans and Spain. It is a hard question.

But your argument falls apart because of Kosovo. NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 to force an Independence that was desired by Kosovo Albanians. Nobody made the crazy argument that if they dont like it, they should move to an already existing Albanian state. Nobody cared about international law, about European treaties (e.g. Helsinki treaty), about UN, about minority rights in Kosovo (15% of population were Serbs)....NATO simply bombed, invaded, most Serbs were expelled, some were murdered, and Kosovo was declared independent after a decent pro forma delay.

Now that is a precedent - it was in Europe, it changed borders by force, it broke all international laws. Therefore today there is simply no way Crimea can be treated differently. NATO set a precedent, and Crimea predictably followed.

Unless you have an answer to Kosovo, your views on Crimea are amusing, but totally irrelevant. If you think that Kosovo was mistake by the West, my question is: what have you done to correct that mistake? Was anyone in the West - including the bloodthirsty media bombers - held accountable?

And if there were no consequences in the West for Kosovo, there wont be any for Crimea either. Precedent is a precedent. Thats the way it has always worked.

If precedents and current political practice are assigned any weight, one can point out that the recent Scottish independence referendum was only held in Scotland, not throughout the UK. Yes, the UK government agreed to that, but at the time of the Crimean referendum there was no legitimate government in the Ukraine, certainly not according to the modern European understanding of legitimacy. Just some thugs who shot their way into the presidential palace.

Your key argument is that Russia (and by implication their allies in Crimea) broke an international law, or a treaty. They probably did, if we could define what is international law. In general, it can always be questioned whether a province or a region can vote itself an independence, or whether the whole country is required to vote on it. We see it today with Catalans and Spain. It is a hard question.

But your argument falls apart because of Kosovo. NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 to force an Independence that was desired by Kosovo Albanians. Nobody made the crazy argument that if they dont like it, they should move to an already existing Albanian state. Nobody cared about international law, about European treaties (e.g. Helsinki treaty), about UN, about minority rights in Kosovo (15% of population were Serbs)....NATO simply bombed, invaded, most Serbs were expelled, some were murdered, and Kosovo was declared independent after a decent pro forma delay.

Now that is a precedent - it was in Europe, it changed borders by force, it broke all international laws. Therefore today there is simply no way Crimea can be treated differently. NATO set a precedent, and Crimea predictably followed.

Unless you have an answer to Kosovo, your views on Crimea are amusing, but totally irrelevant. If you think that Kosovo was mistake by the West, my question is: what have you done to correct that mistake? Was anyone in the West - including the bloodthirsty media bombers - held accountable?

And if there were no consequences in the West for Kosovo, there wont be any for Crimea either. Precedent is a precedent. Thats the way it has always worked.

An interesting point and worthwhile reminder but why isn’t the international treaty by which (in return for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons on its soil as I understand it) Ukraine’s borders were acknowledged and guaranteed by Russia (and others) a distinguishing feature which answers your claim of precedent?

There are at least three features that distinguish Crimea from Kosovo:

1) the Russian guarantee in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons (Serbia's or Yugoslavia's borders were not guaranteed in exchange for Yugoslavia giving up its nukes)
2) Russia directly acquired the territory (Kosovo didn't join the US, and although EU accession talks have already started, A) the EU is not a country, and B) they didn't start immediately after Kosovo was taken from Yugoslavia)
3) there was a large-scale ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo after the NATO victory (no such thing so far in Crimea - this one is in the Russian's favor)

There might be more.

One can also argue that if the West and specifically the US were allowed to break international law many times, one can argue that the Russians are then allowed to go one step further: after all, if the Uncle Sam is allowed to set a precedent, then, one can argue, why isn't Mother Russia allowed the same thing?

In any event, obviously reality could be twisted by both sides to think that they "won" the argument. But it isn't a settled question, neither will it ever be.

An interesting point and worthwhile reminder but why isn't the international treaty by which (in return for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons on its soil as I understand it) Ukraine's borders were acknowledged and guaranteed by Russia (and others) a distinguishing feature which answers your claim of precedent?

There are at least three features that distinguish Crimea from Kosovo:

1) the Russian guarantee in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons (Serbia’s or Yugoslavia’s borders were not guaranteed in exchange for Yugoslavia giving up its nukes)
2) Russia directly acquired the territory (Kosovo didn’t join the US, and although EU accession talks have already started, A) the EU is not a country, and B) they didn’t start immediately after Kosovo was taken from Yugoslavia)
3) there was a large-scale ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo after the NATO victory (no such thing so far in Crimea – this one is in the Russian’s favor)

There might be more.

One can also argue that if the West and specifically the US were allowed to break international law many times, one can argue that the Russians are then allowed to go one step further: after all, if the Uncle Sam is allowed to set a precedent, then, one can argue, why isn’t Mother Russia allowed the same thing?

In any event, obviously reality could be twisted by both sides to think that they “won” the argument. But it isn’t a settled question, neither will it ever be.

Another point is total credibility loss of Russia.
(And before Russia had credibility slightly above zero)

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.
It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.
But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

A coup was itself minor and non-important event.
Let's face it. Who cares which oligarch is president of Ukraine? Nobody.

Russia is left with no friends in Europe. Even Belarus is now afraid of Russia.

But betrayal of an ally and back-stabbing is typical Russian behaviour.
And it only and nothing else explains why all Eastern European neighbours distrust Russia.
Russia is untrustworthy and aggressive. That's simple.

And that is why Scandinavian and Baltic countries, Poland and Romania established cordon sanitaire around Russia.

Russian allies in Western Europe like France, Spain, Italy are economical non-entities in Eastern Europe. And can offer Russia plain nothing.
And they are fake, as they do not care at all about Russian economical progress.
They just hope to sell cheese and wine and olive to Russia, and count Russian tourists' money. And Russia gains nothing from having such "friends".

Germany wants to become European superpower and gave Russia a role as an undeveloped commodity provider.
For sure Germans do not want Russia to become an economic power.
So new gas pipeline Ja
Imports of Russian manufacturing products - strong Nein.

There are at least three features that distinguish Crimea from Kosovo:

1) the Russian guarantee in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons (Serbia's or Yugoslavia's borders were not guaranteed in exchange for Yugoslavia giving up its nukes)
2) Russia directly acquired the territory (Kosovo didn't join the US, and although EU accession talks have already started, A) the EU is not a country, and B) they didn't start immediately after Kosovo was taken from Yugoslavia)
3) there was a large-scale ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo after the NATO victory (no such thing so far in Crimea - this one is in the Russian's favor)

There might be more.

One can also argue that if the West and specifically the US were allowed to break international law many times, one can argue that the Russians are then allowed to go one step further: after all, if the Uncle Sam is allowed to set a precedent, then, one can argue, why isn't Mother Russia allowed the same thing?

In any event, obviously reality could be twisted by both sides to think that they "won" the argument. But it isn't a settled question, neither will it ever be.

Another point is total credibility loss of Russia.
(And before Russia had credibility slightly above zero)

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.
It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.
But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

A coup was itself minor and non-important event.
Let’s face it. Who cares which oligarch is president of Ukraine? Nobody.

Russia is left with no friends in Europe. Even Belarus is now afraid of Russia.

But betrayal of an ally and back-stabbing is typical Russian behaviour.
And it only and nothing else explains why all Eastern European neighbours distrust Russia.
Russia is untrustworthy and aggressive. That’s simple.

And that is why Scandinavian and Baltic countries, Poland and Romania established cordon sanitaire around Russia.

Russian allies in Western Europe like France, Spain, Italy are economical non-entities in Eastern Europe. And can offer Russia plain nothing.
And they are fake, as they do not care at all about Russian economical progress.
They just hope to sell cheese and wine and olive to Russia, and count Russian tourists’ money. And Russia gains nothing from having such “friends”.

Germany wants to become European superpower and gave Russia a role as an undeveloped commodity provider.
For sure Germans do not want Russia to become an economic power.
So new gas pipeline Ja
Imports of Russian manufacturing products – strong Nein.

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.

You repeat nothing but Soviet demagoguery. "Friendship of nations" and similar nonsense were typical Soviet manipulative tools to exploit Russians and allow every named "brother" to live a happy leech life on the body of the "elder brother".

Actually what many Russians believed at least until 2014 that Ukrainians are actually Russians. Yes, southern ones with a southern mentality but the same Russians, so in such a case it is always natural to think that Russians must live and it would be better to them all to live in one great big country, then to live separated by artificial states and borders. But after 2014 many Ukrainians showed their true face, many Russians just despise Ukrainians and want to have nothing to do with them. Few now wants to live with Ukrainians in one state. You've tried very hard to reject Russians and finally Russians themselves do not want to accept you.

It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.

It is a lie. The integrity was guaranteed by the Bolshevik creators of Ukraine and by their nomenklatura successors like Yeltsin, Putin and all. But those Soviet impostors, their treaties and guaranties are as legitimate as Ukraine itself.

Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.

Only those were pro-Russian who were actually Russians by their essence but Ukrainians by name and by a historical casus, but the true ideological Ukrainians (they were rather named "svidomy", "shchyry" etc., you know), has always hated Russia and have been anti-Russian from the very start, from the 19th century.

But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

A coup was itself minor and non-important event.
Let’s face it. Who cares which oligarch is president of Ukraine? Nobody.

Another lie. The coup was one of the most important events in the entire post-Soviet history. And it was actually a final and decisive victory of Ukrainian nationalism and nationalists, and because Ukrainian nationalism is essentially anti-Russian by its very nature the coup was a victory of anti-Russian forces. Happily for those forces, in the Kremlin there weren't pro-Russian forces either, so Ukraine was not wiped from the maps in 2014 as it should be.

Russia is left with no friends in Europe. Even Belarus is now afraid of Russia.

No wonder, Belarus is another artificial anti-Russian entity who was intentionally created and nursed by Bolsheviks.

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

This is a laughably ignorant statement. If Ukrainians were "overwhelmingly pro-Russian" why wasn't Russian made an official language a long time ago? Why is it that the first thing the Maidarasts did after chasing out Yanukovich was to try to repeal the regional languages law (which they had fought so hard against in the first place)? This is your version of pro-Russianness? We don't need "pro-Russians" like this.

But betrayal of an ally and back-stabbing is typical Russian behaviour.And it only and nothing else explains why all Eastern European neighbours distrust Russia.

Since it's "typical Russian behaviour" according to you, I'm sure you can name at least a few examples. By betrayal, you mean things like giving Lithuania its capital (Vilnius) and main port (Klaipeda) in exchange for nothing? Which Lithuania would never have been able to acquire by itself. How's that Lithuanian gratitude coming along? The point is that Eastern Europeans' opinions aren't worth very much to us and with good reason.

Russian allies in Western Europe like France, Spain, Italy are economical non-entities in Eastern Europe. And can offer Russia plain nothing.

Actually, my dear, France just signed multi-billion contract to build subs for Australian Navy–speaks volumes doesn’t it. Just a bit on the issue: France (for all her major flaws) builds her own multi-purpose and strategic missile subs–the level of technological and industrial expertise which is beyond Germany’s capabilities. BTW, France has an active contract with Russia on launching of satellites from Kouru spaceport. FYI European Space Agency (ESA) is simply a hollow word without France. I understand that you have some emotional issues not least related to the overall ignorance, but after seeing how MTU (among many) lost its Russian market share and does not have a chance of returning (Russia already substituted most of it) I really do question this proverbial “Teutonic grim genius”.

Germany wants to become European superpower and gave Russia a role as an undeveloped commodity provider.

Sir, Germany will not become European superpower because it is predominantly populated with people who will be beaten into submission by much more determined “refugees” because they are products of a degenerate political culture of EU. The nation which has, as an example, Green Party as viable and influential political force has to be examined on the subject of suicidal tendencies or plain simple mental health. As per “giving Russia a role”–when, apart from over-engineered German luxury cars and some machining centers, Germany will be able completely on her own produce space program with global reach, own commercial and world-class military jets, cutting edge nuclear power generation technologies, microprocessors among many, then we may talk. Let Germany not to forget to carry bags of cash to Russia since all that listed and more is beyond Germany’s industrial and scientific capability. And speaking on the “superpower”, Russia can wipe Germany (not that she needs too) from the face of the Earth in about 10 to 15 minutes for a simple reason–spectrum of Russia’s military technologies both nuclear and conventional (that is the REAL hi tech) is also beyond Germany’s “superpower” capability–she simply has nothing even remotely comparable. So, enjoy your “superpower” status while those primitive Russkies prepare mission to Mars. Meanwhile, install fvcking air conditioners in your god damned Frankfurt shithole of an airport when it is 30+ C outside. This is totally within Germany’s technological expertise , at least for now.

In conclusion. France, can wipe Germany from the face of the Earth also in 10 to 15 minutes, because France has a genuine nuclear force which fields technologies which are beyond Germany’s capability, this is apart from the fact of Germany being de facto occupied nation. Good luck with your pursuit of superpowerdom. Do not forget to call White House for permission.

That said, I disagree with you on Germany. It has the world's most industrially complex economy after Japan's. If it were to spend 2% of its GDP on the military instead of its current 1% it would soon easily match French capabilities, and if it were to spend 5%, it would soon in all likelihood match Russia's too. Would it be amiss to point out Germany consistently exports as much arms as China, France, and the UK?

Russian allies in Western Europe like France, Spain, Italy are economical non-entities in Eastern Europe. And can offer Russia plain nothing.

Actually, my dear, France just signed multi-billion contract to build subs for Australian Navy--speaks volumes doesn't it. Just a bit on the issue: France (for all her major flaws) builds her own multi-purpose and strategic missile subs--the level of technological and industrial expertise which is beyond Germany's capabilities. BTW, France has an active contract with Russia on launching of satellites from Kouru spaceport. FYI European Space Agency (ESA) is simply a hollow word without France. I understand that you have some emotional issues not least related to the overall ignorance, but after seeing how MTU (among many) lost its Russian market share and does not have a chance of returning (Russia already substituted most of it) I really do question this proverbial "Teutonic grim genius".

Germany wants to become European superpower and gave Russia a role as an undeveloped commodity provider.

Sir, Germany will not become European superpower because it is predominantly populated with people who will be beaten into submission by much more determined "refugees" because they are products of a degenerate political culture of EU. The nation which has, as an example, Green Party as viable and influential political force has to be examined on the subject of suicidal tendencies or plain simple mental health. As per "giving Russia a role"--when, apart from over-engineered German luxury cars and some machining centers, Germany will be able completely on her own produce space program with global reach, own commercial and world-class military jets, cutting edge nuclear power generation technologies, microprocessors among many, then we may talk. Let Germany not to forget to carry bags of cash to Russia since all that listed and more is beyond Germany's industrial and scientific capability. And speaking on the "superpower", Russia can wipe Germany (not that she needs too) from the face of the Earth in about 10 to 15 minutes for a simple reason--spectrum of Russia's military technologies both nuclear and conventional (that is the REAL hi tech) is also beyond Germany's "superpower" capability--she simply has nothing even remotely comparable. So, enjoy your "superpower" status while those primitive Russkies prepare mission to Mars. Meanwhile, install fvcking air conditioners in your god damned Frankfurt shithole of an airport when it is 30+ C outside. This is totally within Germany's technological expertise , at least for now.

In conclusion. France, can wipe Germany from the face of the Earth also in 10 to 15 minutes, because France has a genuine nuclear force which fields technologies which are beyond Germany's capability, this is apart from the fact of Germany being de facto occupied nation. Good luck with your pursuit of superpowerdom. Do not forget to call White House for permission.

But whatever will Russia do without Polish apples?!

That said, I disagree with you on Germany. It has the world’s most industrially complex economy after Japan’s. If it were to spend 2% of its GDP on the military instead of its current 1% it would soon easily match French capabilities, and if it were to spend 5%, it would soon in all likelihood match Russia’s too. Would it be amiss to point out Germany consistently exports as much arms as China, France, and the UK?

Would it be amiss to point out Germany consistently exports as much arms as China, France, and the UK?

No it wouldn't be, but the devil is in details. Germany, despite being one of the assembly hubs for Airbus is a virtual non-entity globally in aerospace industry. While having a substantial export activity in arms trade, German exports are mostly limited to SSKs in submarines and frigate-level surface combatants, most electronic equipment of which are of....drum roll...Thales, which is French multi-national. Even the newest guns for future tank are being developed in concert with France. This is just couple of the examples. No amount of GDP can buy one a world-class aerospace, let alone serious nuclear-powered shipbuilding--it is a different order of magnitude of expertise and industrial capacity. Even if Germany decides to build nuclear deterrent or something even remotely comparable with small French naval nuclear component--it will take way more than 5% or even 7% of GDP. It takes decades of research and of weapons, electronics, metallurgy etc. designs to produce that. Example? China can buy Germany several times over with all of its guts and yet, while having enormous money and European "expertise" China still can not produce decent jet engine, decent fighter jet, forget commercial one. Nuclear subs? And here China has way more expertise than Germany (I may add money too)--they all are decades behind Russian or US built SSNs. Again, this is just one example out of very many.

Money, while important, they do not define everything--it is culture which plays a decisive role in industrial undertakings. Germany was always known for precision tools, she produces still some top-notch CNC machining centers, great rolling stock (Hense cooperation between RZhD and Siemens) and some electric machines--it is still there, for now. Yet, last time I flew Lufhansa--these were Boeing 747-400 and dash 8. I am always, and for a good reason, skeptical of all kinds of ratings, especially ones which put Slovenia's "complexity" above complexity of the US, or Estonia over Russia. Whatever this "complexity" means. The only reliable and time proven measure of real economic development is the number of enclosed industrial cycles and when Germany will start launching own space missions or built first-class jets, then we may talk. The problem? Try to squeeze 5 or 7% of GDP for those programs from Germany's polity. The speed with which Germany is turning into the shithole puts all those "what if German wanted" hypothetical scenarios into the the field of, well, what if what is not possible in nature would have happened. So, as a conclusion, not only I don't think but I do know for sure that while Germany still retains a position of industrious and highly developed nation we will not see German space stations, German commercial jets, German fighter jets, German nuclear energy etc. any time soon, or ever. The only thing which is left for Germany is to be a part of a combined EU team in achieving any cutting edge dual use technologies and I mean all those Frances, Italys, Spains etc. I omit here Germany's suicidal energy policy but, I guess, you can not fix stupid.

That said, I disagree with you on Germany. It has the world's most industrially complex economy after Japan's. If it were to spend 2% of its GDP on the military instead of its current 1% it would soon easily match French capabilities, and if it were to spend 5%, it would soon in all likelihood match Russia's too. Would it be amiss to point out Germany consistently exports as much arms as China, France, and the UK?

Would it be amiss to point out Germany consistently exports as much arms as China, France, and the UK?

No it wouldn’t be, but the devil is in details. Germany, despite being one of the assembly hubs for Airbus is a virtual non-entity globally in aerospace industry. While having a substantial export activity in arms trade, German exports are mostly limited to SSKs in submarines and frigate-level surface combatants, most electronic equipment of which are of….drum roll…Thales, which is French multi-national. Even the newest guns for future tank are being developed in concert with France. This is just couple of the examples. No amount of GDP can buy one a world-class aerospace, let alone serious nuclear-powered shipbuilding–it is a different order of magnitude of expertise and industrial capacity. Even if Germany decides to build nuclear deterrent or something even remotely comparable with small French naval nuclear component–it will take way more than 5% or even 7% of GDP. It takes decades of research and of weapons, electronics, metallurgy etc. designs to produce that. Example? China can buy Germany several times over with all of its guts and yet, while having enormous money and European “expertise” China still can not produce decent jet engine, decent fighter jet, forget commercial one. Nuclear subs? And here China has way more expertise than Germany (I may add money too)–they all are decades behind Russian or US built SSNs. Again, this is just one example out of very many.

Money, while important, they do not define everything–it is culture which plays a decisive role in industrial undertakings. Germany was always known for precision tools, she produces still some top-notch CNC machining centers, great rolling stock (Hense cooperation between RZhD and Siemens) and some electric machines–it is still there, for now. Yet, last time I flew Lufhansa–these were Boeing 747-400 and dash 8. I am always, and for a good reason, skeptical of all kinds of ratings, especially ones which put Slovenia’s “complexity” above complexity of the US, or Estonia over Russia. Whatever this “complexity” means. The only reliable and time proven measure of real economic development is the number of enclosed industrial cycles and when Germany will start launching own space missions or built first-class jets, then we may talk. The problem? Try to squeeze 5 or 7% of GDP for those programs from Germany’s polity. The speed with which Germany is turning into the shithole puts all those “what if German wanted” hypothetical scenarios into the the field of, well, what if what is not possible in nature would have happened. So, as a conclusion, not only I don’t think but I do know for sure that while Germany still retains a position of industrious and highly developed nation we will not see German space stations, German commercial jets, German fighter jets, German nuclear energy etc. any time soon, or ever. The only thing which is left for Germany is to be a part of a combined EU team in achieving any cutting edge dual use technologies and I mean all those Frances, Italys, Spains etc. I omit here Germany’s suicidal energy policy but, I guess, you can not fix stupid.

I also suppose you subscribe to Putin’s notion that the Budapest memorandum became null and void when Yanukovich skedaddled before a lot of people armed with a few hunting shotguns, in which case there is nothing more to discuss.

The Budapest memorandum was always legally meaningless because it was not a treaty, approved by a legislature. It was just a written promise by Yeltsin, who did not have the power to bind all future Russian governments to a particular foreign policy all by himself.

We don’t have to go all the way back to Kosovo to find a precedent for Russia illegally using military force in a foreign state to advance its interests. Let’s look at, oh, Syria. We (i.e., the US) are in Syria illegally, arming an insurgency against the government to enforce not merely a change of policy but a change in government. I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to say that Ukraine is as important to Russian national interests as Syria is to United States national interests. Nu vot?

The statistics you boast are the result of spades and spades of propagandistic brainwashing,
and mind manipulation on a mass scale performed by the media.
If Crimeans were in-formed, like we inform the Westerners, they would do the right choices, and wish the right wishes (ours), like the Westerners to.

Contrary, what you have there is fascism, nazism, anti-Semitism (most of all!), and all the other foul words and political crimes we can think of, including non-masochism.
We really, really don't like it Karlin. And you should stop now that we are still telling you kindly.

The statistics you boast are the result of spades and spades of propagandistic brainwashing,
and mind manipulation on a mass scale performed by the media.
If Crimeans were in-formed, like we inform the Westerners, they would do the right choices, and wish the right wishes (ours), like the Westerners to.

Dear Anonymous, as anonymouses often do, you has made so a perfect revealed truth sarcastic comment that it must be remembered and cited.

All those polls may be true, though you'd have done well to compare the wording of the questions — poll results are notoriously dependent on wording. Also, by now many of those who'd have answered in the negative, of whatever ethnicity, have left Crimea for the mainland, and will hardly go back. Also, I think getting Crimea back would be more trouble than it's worth for Ukraine — in particular the seashore, which is the best real estate there, is a concentrate of homo sovieticus best left in the past. (See Varlamov's recent posts on the subject, varlamov.ru/tag/Крым.) I just feel sorry for the Tartars. Still, the plain facts of the matter are that (a) Ukraine had a lot of nukes left over after USSR collapsed; (b) USA, UK and Russia promised, if in a half-assed manner, to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up the nukes; (c) by Putin's own boastful admission, Russia had sent her troops to capture Simferopol and Ukrainian military bases before the Crimean referendum happened or even declared. Sending troops to capture a part of a foreign country is generally considered an act of war. Those same records to which you refer indicate that Ukraine's new government did not have enough troops or confidence in their willingness to execute orders (events at several bases in Crimea showed that these doubts were far from baseless) to repel the invasion, and they also had to worry about Russia marching in across north-eastern borders "to restore order". I suppose Ukraine should be grateful for what help it had, but the promise on the strength of which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons was broken. Will anybody trust America's word again on such weighty matters? Trump should think about it.

Also, I think getting Crimea back would be more trouble than it’s worth for Ukraine — in particular the seashore, which is the best real estate there, is a concentrate of homo sovieticus best left in the past. (See Varlamov’s recent posts on the subject, varlamov.ru/tag/Крым.) I just feel sorry for the Tartars.

I’m sure the most valuable and delicious patches of the shore have been owned by the Tatars. The Tatars are one of the main beneficiaries from this conflict.

(b) USA, UK and Russia promised, if in a half-assed manner, to defend Ukraine in exchange for giving up the nukes;

Tis not true, nobody “promised” Ukraine to defend it, but just not to act violently. And it was indeed more like promises and not like a binding treaty, but even if it were a binding treaty, any country has a right to break treaties if it wants so.

I don't offer it to them, and you're not one to reject it even if I did. (I also happen to think Eurovision is retarded.)

2) The UkSSR is by far the single biggest remnant of sovok in Eurasia.

Sure, and Russia is a worldwide beacon of culture and prosperity. Go outside Moscow and St. Petersburg once in a while.

3) Russia’s troops were already there, so there was no invasion.

This gets the prize for facetiousness. Russian troops were in Crimea under a bilateral treaty, their rights and functions circumscribed. American troops are stationed i.a. on Japanese territory, so I suppose you think it wouldn't be an act of war (by the way, I didn't use the word invasion) if they marched to the Okinawa prefectural diet, ordered everybody out and installed a new prefectural governor?

The Maidanists came to power illegitimately, and as such the Crimeans had no obligation to recognize their sovereignty over them.

This is your strongest point, but if you take this line, any new government is by definition illegitimate. Are Israeli, Gaza and West Bank Arabs obliged to recognize Israeli sovereignty? I also suppose you subscribe to Putin's notion that the Budapest memorandum became null and void when Yanukovich skedaddled before a lot of people armed with a few hunting shotguns, in which case there is nothing more to discuss.

Sure, and Russia is a worldwide beacon of culture and prosperity. Go outside Moscow and St. Petersburg once in a while.

Whataboutism does not work here really. Even if Russia were as bad as Ukraine (obviously Ukraine is worse), it will not make Ukraine better. You must stop comparing yourself with Russia, when you claim you are grown up and independent. And you had better to go outside Kiev once a while.

This is your strongest point, but if you take this line, any new government is by definition illegitimate.

A good point. Yes, Ukraine is illegitimate per se. And any discussions if so and so actions of Russia towards Ukraine are legitimate or illegitimate are nonsensical by definition. It is Ukrainians who are actual illegitimate separatists, but who dare to call actual irredentists separatist and even terrorists. It is really very Orwellian when separatists call others separatists. If in the Kremlin there were a real Russian nationalist, patriot and imperialist and not the best friend of Ukraine and the Ukrainian god Putin, Ukraine will hardly stand a week.

Another point is total credibility loss of Russia.
(And before Russia had credibility slightly above zero)

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.
It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.
But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

A coup was itself minor and non-important event.
Let's face it. Who cares which oligarch is president of Ukraine? Nobody.

Russia is left with no friends in Europe. Even Belarus is now afraid of Russia.

But betrayal of an ally and back-stabbing is typical Russian behaviour.
And it only and nothing else explains why all Eastern European neighbours distrust Russia.
Russia is untrustworthy and aggressive. That's simple.

And that is why Scandinavian and Baltic countries, Poland and Romania established cordon sanitaire around Russia.

Russian allies in Western Europe like France, Spain, Italy are economical non-entities in Eastern Europe. And can offer Russia plain nothing.
And they are fake, as they do not care at all about Russian economical progress.
They just hope to sell cheese and wine and olive to Russia, and count Russian tourists' money. And Russia gains nothing from having such "friends".

Germany wants to become European superpower and gave Russia a role as an undeveloped commodity provider.
For sure Germans do not want Russia to become an economic power.
So new gas pipeline Ja
Imports of Russian manufacturing products - strong Nein.

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.

You repeat nothing but Soviet demagoguery. “Friendship of nations” and similar nonsense were typical Soviet manipulative tools to exploit Russians and allow every named “brother” to live a happy leech life on the body of the “elder brother”.

Actually what many Russians believed at least until 2014 that Ukrainians are actually Russians. Yes, southern ones with a southern mentality but the same Russians, so in such a case it is always natural to think that Russians must live and it would be better to them all to live in one great big country, then to live separated by artificial states and borders. But after 2014 many Ukrainians showed their true face, many Russians just despise Ukrainians and want to have nothing to do with them. Few now wants to live with Ukrainians in one state. You’ve tried very hard to reject Russians and finally Russians themselves do not want to accept you.

It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.

It is a lie. The integrity was guaranteed by the Bolshevik creators of Ukraine and by their nomenklatura successors like Yeltsin, Putin and all. But those Soviet impostors, their treaties and guaranties are as legitimate as Ukraine itself.

Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.

Only those were pro-Russian who were actually Russians by their essence but Ukrainians by name and by a historical casus, but the true ideological Ukrainians (they were rather named “svidomy”, “shchyry” etc., you know), has always hated Russia and have been anti-Russian from the very start, from the 19th century.

But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

A coup was itself minor and non-important event.
Let’s face it. Who cares which oligarch is president of Ukraine? Nobody.

Another lie. The coup was one of the most important events in the entire post-Soviet history. And it was actually a final and decisive victory of Ukrainian nationalism and nationalists, and because Ukrainian nationalism is essentially anti-Russian by its very nature the coup was a victory of anti-Russian forces. Happily for those forces, in the Kremlin there weren’t pro-Russian forces either, so Ukraine was not wiped from the maps in 2014 as it should be.

Russia is left with no friends in Europe. Even Belarus is now afraid of Russia.

No wonder, Belarus is another artificial anti-Russian entity who was intentionally created and nursed by Bolsheviks.

Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the end of Cold War

Fixed it for you "Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the start of Cold War"

Fixed it for you:”keeping Russians miserable seems to be the main objective of US foreign policy since Oct. 1917.” (Personally I make an exception for the Harding Coolidge era.)
I wonder if the Russians remember how TR hosed them at Portsmouth after the Russo-Japanese war and how the Evil Wilson invaded them from 1917-1920 in an attempt to reverse the decisions of Oct.1917.
While the neocons are talked about as if they were Israeli firsters, their true desire is to reverse the decision the USSR took in 1924 to prefer Stalin to Trotsky after the demise of Lenin.
Everything the neocons have done is aimed at delegitimizing any Russian nationalist/patriot leader, and memory holing any history of their part in the horrors of the holodomor and the purges and the destruction of the Russian economy under Gorbachev and Yelstin.
It is why there is no available British/English/American translation of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together.

Another point is total credibility loss of Russia.
(And before Russia had credibility slightly above zero)

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.
It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.
But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

A coup was itself minor and non-important event.
Let's face it. Who cares which oligarch is president of Ukraine? Nobody.

Russia is left with no friends in Europe. Even Belarus is now afraid of Russia.

But betrayal of an ally and back-stabbing is typical Russian behaviour.
And it only and nothing else explains why all Eastern European neighbours distrust Russia.
Russia is untrustworthy and aggressive. That's simple.

And that is why Scandinavian and Baltic countries, Poland and Romania established cordon sanitaire around Russia.

Russian allies in Western Europe like France, Spain, Italy are economical non-entities in Eastern Europe. And can offer Russia plain nothing.
And they are fake, as they do not care at all about Russian economical progress.
They just hope to sell cheese and wine and olive to Russia, and count Russian tourists' money. And Russia gains nothing from having such "friends".

Germany wants to become European superpower and gave Russia a role as an undeveloped commodity provider.
For sure Germans do not want Russia to become an economic power.
So new gas pipeline Ja
Imports of Russian manufacturing products - strong Nein.

Russia claimed that Ukrainians are brotherly nation and friends and allies forever etc.
It guaranteed Ukraine integrity and Ukrainians were overwhelmingly pro-Russian.
But when Ukrainians staged a coup and ejected the president, Russia back-stabbed Ukraine.

This is a laughably ignorant statement. If Ukrainians were “overwhelmingly pro-Russian” why wasn’t Russian made an official language a long time ago? Why is it that the first thing the Maidarasts did after chasing out Yanukovich was to try to repeal the regional languages law (which they had fought so hard against in the first place)? This is your version of pro-Russianness? We don’t need “pro-Russians” like this.

But betrayal of an ally and back-stabbing is typical Russian behaviour.
And it only and nothing else explains why all Eastern European neighbours distrust Russia.

Since it’s “typical Russian behaviour” according to you, I’m sure you can name at least a few examples. By betrayal, you mean things like giving Lithuania its capital (Vilnius) and main port (Klaipeda) in exchange for nothing? Which Lithuania would never have been able to acquire by itself. How’s that Lithuanian gratitude coming along? The point is that Eastern Europeans’ opinions aren’t worth very much to us and with good reason.

Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the end of Cold War

Fixed it for you "Keeping Russians miserable appears to be the main objective of US foreign policy in Europe since the start of Cold War"

The American establishment was much kinder and gentler toward Russia during the Soviet Era (1917-1991). American anticommunists were ritually and publicly humiliated. Even worse, the American government allowed the KGB/GRU to carry out assassinations on American soil. These days it is mandatory to slander and insult Putin, and the Russian people in general. Trump refuses to play along and as a result is the object of an all-out journalistic attack. The implications of this are apparently too much for the American public to handle.

I don't offer it to them, and you're not one to reject it even if I did. (I also happen to think Eurovision is retarded.)

2) The UkSSR is by far the single biggest remnant of sovok in Eurasia.

Sure, and Russia is a worldwide beacon of culture and prosperity. Go outside Moscow and St. Petersburg once in a while.

3) Russia’s troops were already there, so there was no invasion.

This gets the prize for facetiousness. Russian troops were in Crimea under a bilateral treaty, their rights and functions circumscribed. American troops are stationed i.a. on Japanese territory, so I suppose you think it wouldn't be an act of war (by the way, I didn't use the word invasion) if they marched to the Okinawa prefectural diet, ordered everybody out and installed a new prefectural governor?

The Maidanists came to power illegitimately, and as such the Crimeans had no obligation to recognize their sovereignty over them.

This is your strongest point, but if you take this line, any new government is by definition illegitimate. Are Israeli, Gaza and West Bank Arabs obliged to recognize Israeli sovereignty? I also suppose you subscribe to Putin's notion that the Budapest memorandum became null and void when Yanukovich skedaddled before a lot of people armed with a few hunting shotguns, in which case there is nothing more to discuss.

You are obviously a severely dumb prick. You’ve never been outside of SP&Moscow you idiot to make such a stupid comment. There are MANY beautiful cities and towns in Russia that are high in culture you cretin.

The overwhelming majority of Crimean Tatars remained in Crimea. The wording has nothing to do with long-term annoyance at the Ukrainian authorities treatment of Crimea for 23 years you dimwit.